Re: replaceTrack proposal

On 03/09/14 22:14, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 3 September 2014 13:03, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> With respect to the success/failure callbacks, I am wondering whether most of the potential errors wouldn't be handled via an Exception, rather than requiring a failure callback.  Also, I'd expect that setTrack would return quickly so that async behavior isn't an absolute requirement.   Or am I missing something that requires async behavior?
>
> Some checks (that both are audio, that both have identical
> peerIdentity constraints, that both are in the right state) are
> trivial and wouldn't require a dispatch.
>
> However, in our implementation, it's likely that confirming that a
> track is a compatible replacement could require asynchronous
> dispatches to a separate thread.  Blocking the main processing thread
> for a synchronous dispatch would be very bad.  In general, I'd prefer
> to have things that need to look at media be asynchronous to avoid any
> risk that a synchronous dispatch is needed.

In an earlier discussion Harald brought up the example of cameras that 
have built in encoders. If you switch track, isn't there a risk that the 
new track is sourced by a camera that produces a format that can be 
handled locally, but not by the remote end - and that won't be found out 
until after an SDP O/A?

Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 20:29:32 UTC